Is it okay to work with groups whose principles you dont share as a feminist, but there is a common cause?

[IwantToRetire]

Education not indoctrination
The events was organised by a coalition of groups including the Christian Institute, which opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia, Stand By Me Scotland, which opposed the wearing of facemasks in schools during the pandemic, Academics for Academic Freedom and For Women Scotland, which opposes Scottish government plans for people to be able to self-identify their legal gender.
www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/education-not-indoctrination-tickets-426737442177

Glasgow venue cancels booking for cancel culture conference
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/04e3fa4a-6696-11ed-9c3b-2d9184d0076f?shareToken=4ffe4f56d755905a476b686c75b65dd0&fbclid=IwAR1UHupPu9Xu4bD_gF0JoJb0A9u-bE2RDTcRqmbt9c8bpRUird9JTGbG8o8

@Happylittlechicken that's a great example of why people need to listen. I've one thing to say really and that is that once the word "hateful" enters the discussion it is game over for any progression in the conversation. The word doesn't have a place in meaningful discussion because it is so emotive. There are very few areas in which there are not significant points to discuss for and against. Those seeking to hone an argument are actually advised to argue for the point of view opposing their own first. It helps to ensure you really do think what you think you do. (I do say this as a person who would usually come down on the side of feminism and left wing politics, but only from a considered place, I have been sorely challenged in this in recent years)

Another example where talking to people on the opposite side makes a difference: Daryl Davis is a black musician in the US whose mission in life is to fight racism and disband the KKK. He does this by meeting KKK members, talking to them, striking up friendships, sharing his life with them. He's convinced many people to leave the KKK. He can only do this because he's open and loving towards people who he has every right to hate and shun.

Unless you're saying that feminists are the KKK in this scenario, I feel this is a powerful example that shows how well worth it can be to talk to our perceived enemies.

Yes!

The pessimism, that all people are absolutely entrenched, it is impossible to move the needle on anything, therefore all discussion is futile and should simply be put to the vote, seems a bit bloody weird on a discussion forum!

Since when did this conversation become about listening to others to educate ourselves about their hateful views?

It was about actively working in tandem with groups who advocated views you disagree with in order to further a common cause.

I'm perfectly happy to listen to peoples' views I find awful and frightening as I think it is so important to understand peoples' underlying motivations that drive those views. I've spent a ton of time quietly lurking incel forums in order to understand why it is these guys think this way and even what it is that they seem to think.

You really are talking about two completely different things here.

absolutely no exploration into the nuance of why it might be dangerous

Are you going to provide that, then? Why might it be dangerous to associate with people whose views differ from one's own? Because one might be persuaded to agree? Is that your logic? Genuine question.

Since when did this conversation become about listening to others to educate ourselves about their hateful views?

I think you missed the point I was making with my example @Dreamwhisper . You said it would be dangerous for feminists to meet with other groups, e.g. Christian groups. So I was giving an example where meeting with another group had a positive effect.

Please explain why you think feminists meeting with other groups imight be dangerous.

Oh and it's a bit insulting to Daryl Davis to say his activism is educating himself about the KKK's views!

Okay, so how about you clarify what you believe the dangers of ‘working with’ (but please define what you mean by ‘working with’ as part of it), people who agree with you on the topic at hand, but oppose you in a different area, are.

Are there any examples you can draw upon, to illustrate what you mean?

Yes! His astonishing courage and faith in the innate goodness of human beings, putting himself at risk, persuades these seemingly entrenched people out of extremist ‘hate’.

Lurking on incel forums isn’t quite that.

I don't recall you posting any reasons at all, and other posters seem to have had the same impression.

You don't seem to have read the thread very thoroughly yourself if you really think that no one has provided any examples of diverse groups working together for a common cause.

I posted a link to an article about European feminists and Catholics campaigning together against surrogacy, DameMaud posted about an organisation in the US bringing left and right wing people together to discuss their differences and someone else mentioned the UK and US allying with the USSR in WW2 to defeat Hitler. I think there were some other examples as well, and there have been a few more this morning.

Your only objection seems to be that if feminists work with religious groups on issues such as indoctrination in education, we will all end up in the Handmaid's Tale. Which is just ridiculous.

So... no answer? I thought I'd try and steelman this a little bit. (I'm sick and bedbound at the moment.)

I've been trying to think about what arguments could be made to support the claim that it would be dangerous for feminists to collaborate with other groups on a shared goal. If we took the case of FWS and the Christian Institute, which are the two groups in this event that on the face of it are most opposed, what could the dangers be?

First of all, I think I'd want to establish exactly what the opposing views were. But let's say abortion, because we can probably roughly assume that FWS are generally pro-choice and the CI are generally pro-life. So what could be dangerous for FWS here?

1. One possibility is that by working with the CI, FWS could be said to be supporting a pro-life message. I feel this could be easily disputed (as they are clearly not supporting this message and it's not the point of the event to even raise the issue) but it's certainly true that some people will use 'guilt by association' as a way to try to undermine a group's mission. So there's a danger that by associating with CI, FWS becomes vulnerable to the 'guilt by association' tactic.
2. Another possibility is that by working with CI, FWS will make CI more accessible to their members, allowing for the possibility that some will be swayed to a pro-life point of view which they wouldn't have if they had never been exposed to the CI.
3. A third possibility is that the CI could use this friendly and collaborative practice as a way to try to infiltrate FWS and destroy it from within.

There may be other possible dangers but given that no one wants to say what they are, these are the ones I managed to come up.

So the questions then would be:

a) what's the probability of any of these situations arising? Is there any historical precedent or example we can look at where any of these possibilities have transpired?
b) are the potential dangers enough to stop feminists from wanting to work in collaboration with other groups? Even if we accept the existence of these dangers, do the benefits of collaboration outweigh the risks?
c) what could FWS do to ensure that they safeguarded against any possible danger?

I think that the first possibility - that people will use 'guilt by association' as a tactic to try to undermine feminists - is the most credible danger. It's the one that we are seeing in action already. The use of 'guilt by association' to undermine women and feminists is coming from TRAs and also from the 'real feminists' and the left. I personally don't think it should stop women from organising. I think that this tactic can be used even when there is zero association - e.g. it's used against KJK simply when someone stands in the same field as her. So I think that FWS just have to accept it will be used against them and I don't see what they can really do to safeguard against that. The best way to undermine this tactic in my opinion is to rigorously expose it for what it is.

The second possibility is credible, but I don't see as a danger. People are allowed to change their minds. Plus it's likely that some individuals who support FWS are already pro-life on the issue of abortion, are already Christians, or have some other belief that they share with the CI. I don't see it as a problem.

The third possibility I don't find credible at all. I would want to see some evidence of this having happened to other movements before I took this seriously.

I suppose another question might be, well, the Christian Institute are one thing. What if feminists want to collaborate with the Reclaim Party (pretty sure there are feminists already in that party tbh) or another right-wing group? There's a slippery slope argument here, that if it's okay for FWS to work with the CI, it may legitimise them working with Reclaim or another, less cuddly group. I think the potential dangers and my rebuttals would still be the same in this case. I wouldn't have a problem with it in the context of an event like this.

I'm sure I've missed lots here! Just thought I would give it a go.

Very good @beastlyslumber . Sorry to hear you are ill right now 💐

The only time I have witness 3 - entryism/ hostile takeover, it has been third wave feminists, transactivists and men taking over feminists groups and assets, by first acting friendly, then ‘offering to help’, then offering to help govern, then kicking out the feminists who created the thing.

I seriously doubt this kind of thing could happen with the CI, because, firstly, they have their own thing going on so don’t need to do it further their aims, secondly, I believe they are sincere about their concerns - worrying about the education of children seems to be consistent with Christian values, thirdly, I have never seen evidence of Christian organisations operating in that underhanded way before.

So I agree it isn’t credible.

Also why would the CI try to infiltrate and take over a feminist organisation? It's not really like the Christian Church is a tiny wee grassroots organisation fighting the behemoth of radical feminism, is it?

Only read the first page but oh dear!

Anyone who says ‘I believe in free speech BUT...” or “It will be a cold day in hell before I share a platform with an anti-abortionist” is parroting TRAs #nodebate. Why is it suddenly ok to cancel or nodebate something you believe is wrong? Why can you no longer see the need for winning people round by debate, by argument? Why is it ok now to shut down opposition? Do you not argue that TRAs should debate with us? That sunshine is needed? That their inability to debate is due to a lack of substance?

Yeah, but what if policy change is achieved that is positive for women and the wrong people have achieved it?!?

For some, feminist is an identity and it is way more important to keep that label pure than to achieve material change for women.

It is often mentioned on here that Muslim women can’t share intimate spaces with men. Would you share a stage with them? Knowing how harmful Islam is for women’s rights? They are anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage too. Or can you only use them to bolster an arguement if they don’t speak up about those beliefs which keep them away from men?

Thanks @EndlessTea It's not serious. I'm hoping I'll be on my feet tomorrow as I have about a million things to do!

The only time I have witness 3 - entryism/ hostile takeover, it has been third wave feminists, transactivists and men taking over feminists groups and assets, by first acting friendly, then ‘offering to help’, then offering to help govern, then kicking out the feminists who created the thing.

That's a good point. I've seen this happen too with wokism invading all kinds of online communities - knitting is one that springs to mind. And yes, many feminist groups got taken over, including the Women's Equality Party. I feel like groups are more vulnerable to entryism by groups that are already seemingly aligned with their values. It's not just acting friendly, but also lying and deceiving about their motivations and beliefs. So it would be harder for a Christian group to do this because their motivations and beliefs would already be known. It would maybe be more of a concern with a right-wing group but again, their beliefs and motivations are already known.

Imo, we should be way more worried about people who seem to be on our side but who push at boundaries and create division. I've mentioned fifth columnists before on FWR. We'd be naive to think that they don't exist in our midst! One way we protect ourselves is with these kinds of discussions where people have to set out their thinking. It's not so easy to mess up a loosely affiliated group of free-thinking, critical-minded individuals. Much easier to find the cracks in an ideology or the fault lines in an existing manifesto.

Also why would the CI try to infiltrate and take over a feminist organisation? It's not really like the Christian Church is a tiny wee grassroots organisation fighting the behemoth of radical feminism, is it?

Good point @ArabellaScott As someone (you?) pointed out early on in the thread, it works both ways.

Would I share a platform with Muslim women? Yes, why not? Would I share a platform with Muslim men? Yes again, why not? Especially if we could discuss women's rights.

I'm not sure a fundamentalist Islamic cleric would share a platform with me because I'm a woman. And I wouldn't be the best person to have the discussion because I've never read the Qu'ran, for example. But there are plenty of Muslim and ex-Muslim women who could take him on.

Use who to bolster an argument? Not sure what you mean about that?

Use who to bolster an argument? Not sure what you mean about that?

I was using ‘you’ in general to refer to feminists who object to sharing a platform with certain beliefs. Not aim at you beastlyslumber. I mean the fact the Muslim women would be excluded from toilets/changing rooms etc (discriminated against) is often brought in to strengthen the argument against allowing men in women’s spaces.

What I said follows directly from what you said.

You do not want feminism to cozy up to right wing or conservative groups or other people with bad ideas, because you are concerned that they may begin to accept some of those bad ideas.

How do you think that would happen, osmosis? If people come to accept some ideas that before they didn't, after talking to people who believe those things, it is because they have heard what they have to say, and found it compelling.

You don't want that to happen, so you don't want feminists to interact with these groups.

How is that NOT an attempt to control the ideas people are exposed to?

Your biggest problem on this thread is that you don't seem to have laid your own ideas out logically to see what the implications are, or to follow them to their logical conclusions.

Ah I see. So you're saying that a feminist might use Muslim women as an example to support their point around single sex spaces, but refuse to share a platform with them because they are, by virtue of their religion, anti-abortion and same sex marriage.

This is a good question. I suppose in order to be consistent, if you wouldn't share a platform with the CI, you wouldn't share a platform with a Muslim group either. But that would rather show up your hypocrisy in using Muslim women as a way to support your arguments. And I also get the impression that for many on the left, the idea that any part of Islam is anti-gay or anti-women is considered to be racist.

Imo, we should be way more worried about people who seem to be on our side but who push at boundaries and create division.

the buddhist concept of 'near enemies' can be useful here.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/07/change-your-life-near-enemies-buddhism

This is very interesting.

I suppose you are really getting to the nub of what I personally find a bit baffling - this idea of the spectre of the ‘far right’ looming over us, ready to snap us up somehow. It seems a bit crazed, if I’m honest. And many feminists I formerly had strong admiration for have gone down in my regard because they keep panicking about the far right, without being able to justify it. The ‘near enemy’ or ‘fifth column’ is a far more plausible concern.

What if I just say that there are women who just don't want men telling us what to do? And a bunch of us get together, from all those communities where men traditionally tell women what to do?

Are we actually still X-wing or X-religion women, if we women within those communities are actually trying to fight it? Are we always to be defined by the men in the community in which we find ourselves? Are other women, from other communities, banned from trying to reach us, because we are from a despised community?

Well, yes, women from many backgrounds can have a kind of solidarity. They will have certain things in common that men do not.

But - not all women agree with the orthodoxies of progressive feminism.

There can be something a little unsavoury about this idea that some women who know the truth can come in and tell other women from certain communities that they have it all wrong. That's not communication and solidarity, it's patronizing.

But that's where KJK gets so much flack, talking to women who are pro-life, or think motherhood is a high calling, etc. as if they might know their own minds. Rather than telling them their value systems are wrong.